Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Soberphobia

WF, best poster to argue with on the pol forum, BY FAR. If for the fact your resarch is top notch and because you "stick to your guns". Would add a lol here but it would be only 20% irony, because your argument is skewed.

Certainly possible I could be wrong, lets take a look.

Diversity: we have a massively diverse population, for example the biggest Greek population in a city in the world outside of Greece is found in Melbourne, Australia. We are FAR more diverse than many countries, and without doing research, probably more diverse than the USA, and if not, we are talking about a margin of very small degrees

Per the Australian Census:

English (36.1%) (2011)
Australian (35.4%) (2011)
Irish (10.4%) (2011)
Scottish (8.9%) (2011)
Italian (4.6%) (2011)
German (4.5%) (2011)
Chinese (4.3%) (2011)
Indian (2.0%) (2011)
Greek (1.9%) (2011)
Dutch (1.7%) (2011)
Lebanese (0.92%)
Armenian (0.82%)
New Zealand (0.81%)
Filipino (0.81%)
Maltese (0.77%)
Croatian (0.59%)
Australian Aboriginal (0.58%)
Welsh (0.57%)
Serbian (0.48%)
Indonesian (0.47%)
Spanish (0.42%)
Macedonian (0.42%)
Sinhalese (0.37%)
American (0.28%)
French (0.5%)
South African (0.4%)
Hungarian (0.3%)
Russian (0.3%)
Turkish (0.3%)

Your largest non-white, non-Euro minority is "Australians" (who may or may not actually be non-white or non-Euro) at ~35%. You're next largest non-Euro, non-White minority is Chinese at 4.3% and Indians at 2%, with most other non-white, non-Euro being below 1%.

In the U.S. our largest non-white, non-Euro minority is harder to find truly brokedown stats for (as with Aussie) since we seem to lump our people into giant chucks based on subcontinents or skin-tone color, not their actual national ancestry or ethnicity. Kudos to your nation for being far less Derp when it comes to this question tbh. My sources are coming up somewhat dry at current, unless you want to know "white/black/asian" with no accounting for actual nations of origin...will have to get back on this one with better sources (we're ~13% black, 5% "asian", and 6% non-white, non-black, non-asian whatever the **** that means.

The biggest tourist population to our country is from China

Aye, I see they do indeed make up a growing population over there. Funny story that.

The difference is I can make an off-joke without some idiot taking offence and blowing my head off as I walk out of the venue, whereas in the USA, that seems to be a common occurence.

Well, tbh you're FAR more likely to be sued by the NAACP and ACLU, then fired from your job and blacklisted, if you make an off-color racial/ethnic joke here than you are to be shot. Depends ont he neighborhood and the words used. use the N-word in part of my local Washington DC, and yes, you're very likely to not make it out alive, I agree. You certainly could be shot....or stabbed, or beat down. All work equally well from what I've seen.

As Axil points out, is is (4 times) more common here than there, but overall the odds of any individual being murdered is still very, very, VERY low. And only half (or so) of our murders are gun muders, so I'm perfectluy happy to live with a 0.0024% chance of being a gun-murder victim, given the demographics of who are gun-murder victims and where, to retain the right to own firearms as laid out in the Constitution (and for the purpose that was behind it).

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Soberphobia

WF, best poster to argue with on the pol forum, BY FAR. If for the fact your resarch is top notch and because you "stick to your guns". Would add a lol here but it would be only 20% irony, because your argument is skewed.

Diversity: we have a massively diverse population, for example the biggest Greek population in a city in the world outside of Greece is found in Melbourne, Australia. We are FAR more diverse than many countries, and without doing research, probably more diverse than the USA, and if not, we are talking about a margin of very small degrees. The biggest tourist population to our country is from China...was joking to a friend who was at the Star Casino in Sydney recently: he said he saw a Chinese tourist urinate from the mens toilet with is penis in full view across the floor of the casino, which apparently is not that uncommon at the Star. I made some comment about that's why they call them the Yellow Peril, and he laughed, along with a Chinese native and a Vietanamese 2nd gen lass who we were at the table with. The difference is I can make an off-joke without some idiot taking offence and blowing my head off as I walk out of the venue, whereas in the USA, that seems to be a common occurence.

===========================================

I assume you exaggerate to make a point. First you are perfectly able to have your head blown off in AU by a pissed off person with a gun, less likely then in the US I will grant.

And it in the US it is not common to have your head blown off, it is much more common that you would prevent your head being blown off due to the fact that we are allowed to defend ourselves with guns.

[Warfish]

Obama announcing his position now.

Says he is enacting "23 Executive Actions".

EDIT: Here is the list of Executive Orders/Actions:

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

As predicted, the list contains absolutely nothing which "makes law" through unilateral executive action. No bans or confiscations of any kind. Mostly contains directives for stricter enforcement, clarification of guidelines, and reallocation of resources.

[rbstern]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Obama announcing his position now.

Says he is enacting "23 Executive Actions".

EDIT: Here is the list of Executive Orders/Actions:

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

"24. After signing these, I'm going to lunch with Joe."

Potent stuff.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

As predicted, the list contains absolutely nothing which "makes law" through unilateral executive action. No bans or confiscations of any kind. Mostly contains directives for stricter enforcement, clarification of guidelines, and reallocation of resources.

Agreed.

It also does nothing that would stop or in any way reduce, gun violence, but will cost taxpayers millions (billions?) to fund and pay for.



Political grandstanding at it's best.

[Ernie]

What is another 500 million dollars that the 47% won't have to worry about paying for? Ridiculous.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It also does nothing that would stop or in any way reduce, gun violence but will cost taxpayers millions (billions?) to fund and pay for.

Perhaps.

I'm not sure how much it will cost, but I don't mind seeing some more resources go toward mental health and background checks.

As always, the success will come down to the execution.

[palmetto defender]

Lots of fluff and puff and spending, of course.
Sounds like a typical meeting of the local Flower Club: Objectives for 2013.

BTW, points #2 and 16 seem like an invasion of individual privacy.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

BTW, points #2 and 16 seem like an invasion of individual privacy.

2) It depends on the barriers in question.
16) Just clarifies that it's not illegal to ask. You don't have to answer.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by parafly

2) It depends on the barriers in question.
16) Just clarifies that it's not illegal to ask. You don't have to answer.

Right, and they aren't required to ask either.. and i wonder why they would as a lot of people wound find new doctor's/psychologists.

[long island leprechaun]

Here's an interesting angle, and one I wasn't aware of although I have read a good deal on the Consititutional Convention and ratification process. Makes some sense, actually. The language of the Second Amendment is very peculiar and suggestive of underlying issues that resulted in its present form... this was in the Washington Post today:

"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery," reads the headline over a piece by Thom Hartmann posted Tuesday on Truthout, a site that "works to spark action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis."
It begins, "The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' (the Framers knew the difference -- see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
"In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the 'slave patrols,' and they were regulated by the states.
"In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
". . . So Madison, who had (at [Thomas] Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
"His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.'
"But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word 'country' to the word 'state,' and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
" 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' . . . "

The author's point about the militias being "independent" of the federal government is incorrect, I'm pretty sure. Congress still had authority over the creation of militias at the state level. But there is a very powerful strain from the revolutionary period forward of Southern slave owners being very fearful of the slave population revolting and "killing them in their beds." The was particularly true in South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia. Slave patrols were of course only one component of these militias, but not an unimportant one. It would be ironic indeed if this was a significant factor in creating the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. It's very very clear that the formations of militias to avoid a standing army or paid mercenaries was at the core of the debate underlying this amendment. The fight was over the choice of organizing defense, not specifically about the individual right to have a gun, which was so common it wasn't even questioned.

[Warfish]

Thom Hartmann, ultra-leftist/communist/collectivist/occupy guy, and lefty version of Rush, Hannity and Savage......thinks the 2nd Amendment was about racism.

A liberal who accuses his political opponenets of being racist.

How new and novel.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Thom Hartmann, ultra-leftist/communist/collectivist/occupy guy, and lefty version of Rush, Hannity and Savage......thinks the 2nd Amendment was about racism.

A liberal who accuses his political opponenets of being racist.

How new and novel.

I could care less who the messenger is, if the facts support him. I'm surprised you're taking that tack, as it's simply the most glib and superficial course to dismissing an argument. I took a look in some detail at the Virginia Militia Constitution Society site which catalogues the history of the development of militias in the South (www.constitution.org/jw/acm_5-m.htm). While Hartmann overstates the case clearly in twisting the ratification to be "solely" about preserving slavery, the evidence is pretty clear as well that this was a prevailing concern. I don't know of the specifics re the supposed exchange between Jefferson and Madison on the structuring of the wording of the Amendment. I want to look into that. Probably the most important thing in all of this if you do have any interest in the history itself and not just taking a stance based on your personal philosophy is that there was considerable back and forth among key players pre and post revolutionary war on the issues at stake in the formation of militias. It is very helpful in understanding why the Second Amendment came about, how Jefferson's recast in the Virginia Constitution moved it more strongly to a case against standing armies. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Second Amendment debate was in fact influenced by Southern protection of their slaveholding system.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Axil

Right, and they aren't required to ask either.. and i wonder why they would as a lot of people wound find new doctor's/psychologists.

This is just stupid. If someone comes in for an evaluation reporting that they've been seriously depressed, suffering from nightmares and flashbacks related to PTSD, feeling increased paranoia, indicating homicidal or suicidal ideation etc. it would be virtually automatic in mental health settings to inquire about weapons and other high risk items in the home. Not to ask is truly poor practice.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

This is just stupid. If someone comes in for an evaluation reporting that they've been seriously depressed, suffering from nightmares and flashbacks related to PTSD, feeling increased paranoia, indicating homicidal or suicidal ideation etc. it would be virtually automatic in mental health settings to inquire about weapons and other high risk items in the home. Not to ask is truly poor practice.

Would the doctor THEN REPORT the person with a short term problem to the government as a "potential violent criminal"?
You could have some really interesting lists out there which could blackball people. Perhaps children could be briefed in school to report on their parents as well?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I could care less who the messenger is, if the facts support him. I'm surprised you're taking that tack, as it's simply the most glib and superficial course to dismissing an argument.

I listen to Mr. Hartmann regularly. Do you?

If not, which of us would you say is in a better position to judge the messanger (and his legitimacy and honesty) in delivering this particular message?

While Hartmann overstates the case clearly in twisting the ratification to be "solely" about preserving slavery

Lol

.....the evidence is pretty clear as well that this was a prevailing concern.

No it doesn't. But as with many things today, if political minded message makers can find a single man in 1776 who wanted the 2nd Amendment because he owned slaves, they'll use that to paint ALL founding fathers as supportive of it because they wanted slavery.

Just like today, when millions of legal gun owners are all painted with the same broad brush as the 0.000000001% of Americans who illegally engage in mass shootings.

not just taking a stance based on your personal philosophy

For example, almost every word Hartmann utters?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Second Amendment debate was in fact influenced by Southern protection of their slaveholding system.

Of course it wouldn't. Put simply, you're not really much of a supporter of the right in the first place, and as such, you're more apt to see nefarious cause in it's originations.

Forgive me, but the entire concept is modern politics in action, not historical fact.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Would the doctor THEN REPORT the person with a short term problem to the government as a "potential violent criminal"?
You could have some really interesting lists out there which could blackball people. Perhaps children could be briefed in school to report on their parents as well?

Axil took umbrage at the very idea that a psychiatrist would actually ask his/her patient if they had a gun in the house in the context of an evaluation that indicated a risk. Reporting it to anybody is a separate question. But right now based on the Tarasoff ruling, MH providers are required to report imminent threats. That's current law.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I listen to Mr. Hartmann regularly. Do you?

If not, which of us would you say is in a better position to judge the messanger (and his legitimacy and honesty) in delivering this particular message?



Lol



No it doesn't. But as with many things today, if political minded message makers can find a single man in 1776 who wanted the 2nd Amendment because he owned slaves, they'll use that to paint ALL founding fathers as supportive of it because they wanted slavery.

Just like today, when millions of legal gun owners are all painted with the same broad brush as the 0.000000001% of Americans who illegally engage in mass shootings.



For example, almost every word Hartmann utters?



Of course it wouldn't. Put simply, you're not really much of a supporter of the right in the first place, and as such, you're more apt to see nefarious cause in it's originations.

Forgive me, but the entire concept is modern politics in action, not historical fact.

As said, I could care less about Hartmann or his agenda. I never heard of him before seeing the piece in the WP today. He stated a point that could be verified based on historical information. That's all I'm interested in. Was he correct? Was this an aspect of the forming of the Amendment? So, no, it's not entirely about modern politics in action at all. If you took a look at the link I put in, you'd see that there's a good deal of information form a source that has nothing to do with Hartmann. Militias were clearly used in the South for slave patrols going back well before the revolutionary war. We know from the Constitutional Convention debates that the maintenance of slavery was imperative to Southern participants and found its way very prominently into the document. While I'd like to confirm the Jefferson/Madison connection re the writing of Second Amendment, it is not a stretch at all to consider that the protection of slaveholders against slave revolt was indeed a factor in framing the Second Amendment.

I've been extremely clear that I do indeed support the Second Amendment. However, I don't read it in the terms that the average bloke does who hasn't bothered to study its origins or the history of the period in which it was written. Why was it framed in the specific language chosen? How do you understand the Amendment in its entirety, not by isolating words or fragments and running wild with them, which is the standard practice.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Here's an interesting angle, and one I wasn't aware of although I have read a good deal on the Consititutional Convention and ratification process. Makes some sense, actually. The language of the Second Amendment is very peculiar and suggestive of underlying issues that resulted in its present form... this was in the Washington Post today:

"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery," reads the headline over a piece by Thom Hartmann posted Tuesday on Truthout, a site that "works to spark action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis."
It begins, "The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' (the Framers knew the difference -- see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
"In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the 'slave patrols,' and they were regulated by the states.
"In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
". . . So Madison, who had (at [Thomas] Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
"His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.'
"But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word 'country' to the word 'state,' and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
" 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' . . . "

The author's point about the militias being "independent" of the federal government is incorrect, I'm pretty sure. Congress still had authority over the creation of militias at the state level. But there is a very powerful strain from the revolutionary period forward of Southern slave owners being very fearful of the slave population revolting and "killing them in their beds." The was particularly true in South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia. Slave patrols were of course only one component of these militias, but not an unimportant one. It would be ironic indeed if this was a significant factor in creating the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. It's very very clear that the formations of militias to avoid a standing army or paid mercenaries was at the core of the debate underlying this amendment. The fight was over the choice of organizing defense, not specifically about the individual right to have a gun, which was so common it wasn't even questioned.

=================================================

The first I had ever heard of 2nd being spoke of for use of slave/Indian militias was last night when I saw a post about Danny Glover espousing these thoughts at Texas A&M sponsored event.
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582

My first thoughts mirrored Draconian Fist's reaction and I quickly dismissed the idea.

Then today I see LIL post a more in depth article on the same subject, and I thought maybe I should put on my "Objective Hat" and look into it, which I have. I thank LIL for posting the story as I found it to be educational.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the premise and the conclusion of the article.

This is what I have learned/concluded.

I think we can all agree that the slaves of the post Revolutionary War did not live in servitude of there master of there own free will for the most part. And I am aware that there were attempts to escape or revolt and these were counter with armed force. I had never given much thought as to what form that armed force took, I assumed it was made of posse"s and the white slave owners and free men. Which is what they were, they were known as Slave Militias. This I believe to be accurate

The article references Georgia law of the 1750's that required Plantation owners are there male white employees to serve in these Slave Militias and check monthly to quell revolt, capture slaves and to check that they were not acquiring arms or planing revolt. This I believe to be accurate.

It goes on to speak to how the original version of the 2nd was worded as below.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The southern states were not happy with this. They felt that this would give the Federal Govt. the ability to call up and more or less redeploy the southern militias somewhere where they would leave the southern states unable to defend them selves against a slave uprising, thus losing there property and way of life. The south was well aware the north as a whole did not support slavery. This was a legitimate fear of the southern states. I believe this to be accurate.

So under Southern pressure the 2nd was rewritten to read as below.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So it seems to me that it is indeed true that slavery influenced the 2nd amendment.

The changing of the wording to me in hindsight had little effect on slavery as we all know it was later abolished anyway. And the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems the same even with the revision. And I continue to believe the meaning of the 2nd was to allow the people a mechanism to fight against tyranny, a way to defend themselves, and a way for the country as a whole to defend itself.